Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:20:44 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc:     ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity
 about collecting email addresses
Message-ID: <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour.  Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by
> the project to correct this ambiguity.

Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other
questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq .

Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead?
(And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.)